# Пов'язані статті щодо Tokenomics

Центр новин HTX надає останні статті та поглиблений аналіз на тему "Tokenomics", що охоплює ринкові тренди, оновлення проєктів, технологічні розробки та регуляторну політику в криптоіндустрії.

On L1 Value Capture from Two Solana Proposals

The article, "Discussing L1 Value Capture Through Two Solana Proposals," by Max Resnick, explores how Layer 1 (L1) blockchain tokens derive their fundamental value, drawing parallels to traditional asset pricing theory. Resnick argues that L1 token value, like stock value, stems from claims on future income streams for holders, not merely from network activity or technological promise. This value is captured when fees are either burned (economically akin to a buyback) or distributed to stakers (akin to dividends). Inflationary staking rewards, by contrast, redistribute value among holders rather than creating it. The core challenge is the quality and defensibility of fee-based revenue. High-quality fees come from sustainable, recurring demand for the network's economic utility (e.g., long-term financial activity), not from transient speculation (e.g., meme coins, airdrops). The strength of a blockchain's network effects—liquidity, applications, users—can make its revenue more defensible and grant it greater pricing power than often assumed. The article proposes a foundational valuation framework for L1s, separating revenue (fees captured for token holders), costs, and total token supply. A key accounting principle is that inflationary rewards should not be counted as a cost unless the newly minted tokens are symmetrically counted as a value input; otherwise, it misrepresents profitability. Finally, Resnick discusses the economics of increasing protocol fees to boost revenue. Since revenue equals price times quantity, the net effect depends on demand elasticity. Research on Ethereum suggests transaction demand is somewhat elastic; a fee increase reduces volume. A uniform fee is a blunt instrument, as different transactions (e.g., small transfers vs. large settlements) have vastly different abilities to pay. The article suggests that transaction-value-based fees, potentially implemented via token programs, could be a more efficient way to capture value from high-willingness-to-pay activities. The discussion is framed around ongoing Solana proposals (SIMD-550, SIMD-553) but focuses on the universal principles of L1 value accrual.

marsbitВчора 07:06

On L1 Value Capture from Two Solana Proposals

marsbitВчора 07:06

UNI Doubles in Two Months Against the Trend: A 5-Year-Overdue Value Realization

Amidst a generally stagnant crypto market in June and July, UNI, the governance token of Uniswap, saw a significant surge, nearly doubling in price from around $2.3 to $4.6. This rally represents a delayed but significant value reassessment, triggered by the practical implementation of its long-debated "fee switch" mechanism. The key turning point was the on-chain execution of the UNIfication proposal in December 2025. It activated a protocol fee on select pools, directed Unichain sequencer revenue (net of costs) to a communal treasury, executed a one-time burn of 100 million UNI, and established a system where all protocol revenue flows into a "TokenJar" contract. This treasury has a single exit: purchasing and permanently burning UNI via a "Firepit" contract. Initially, the market reacted tepidly as the generated revenue and corresponding burn rate were modest. The narrative shifted dramatically in July 2025 with two major developments. First, the launch of Robinhood Chain, tailored for tokenized stocks, rapidly became a primary source of volume and fees for Uniswap, at one point contributing nearly half of its weekly fees. Second, governance votes successfully expanded the fee mechanism to v4 pools and initiated a temperature check for fees on Robinhood Chain. The activation of v4 fees caused the protocol's daily revenue earmarked for UNI burns to nearly triple. The core of UNI's recent price action is the transition from a pure governance token to a cash-flow asset with a permanent, protocol-funded buyer. Its effectiveness is amplified by UNI's mature and widely distributed supply, with no major impending unlocks to dilute the impact of the buybacks. The sustainability of this rally now hinges on whether the transaction volume, particularly on Robinhood Chain, persists after its initial gas subsidies expire, determining if this is a genuine value realization or a subsidy-fueled spike.

marsbit08/01 05:30

UNI Doubles in Two Months Against the Trend: A 5-Year-Overdue Value Realization

marsbit08/01 05:30

Deep Dive into FWA: An Intriguing Experiment Turning NFTs into "On-Chain Gachapon"

A Deep Dive into FWA: The “On-Chain Gacha” Experiment for NFTs Fake World Assets (FWA), created by TokenWorks, introduces an innovative “NFT gacha machine” fully operating on-chain. Users can deposit eligible NFTs paired with ETH (called Backing) to create a Position, acting as a prize pool. Others can then pay a uniform Acquisition Price for a chance to win a random NFT from the pool. The core mechanism features a reverse probability system: Positions with lower Backing have a higher chance of being selected, serving as common prizes, while high-Backing Positions are rare “jackpots.” The acquisition price is calculated based on the harmonic mean of all Backings, keeping entry costs low. When a Position is won, the purchaser must choose: keep the NFT or accept the Standing Bid (85% of the Backing, claimable in ETH or $FWA tokens), returning the NFT to the original depositor. The protocol involves two main roles. Depositors provide liquidity (NFT + ETH), earning a share of fees from each draw, distributed equally per active Position, plus potential $FWA rewards. Purchasers pay to spin the gacha, receiving $FWA rewards for participation. A special “Crown” reward goes to the Position with the highest Backing. The $FWA token has a fixed supply and is initially obtainable only through protocol participation (depositing or purchasing), with external buying disabled early on to reduce sell pressure. Its value is supported by a built-in buy pressure: when purchasers opt for the $FWA settlement on a Standing Bid, the protocol uses the backing ETH to buy $FWA from the market. Revenue for the protocol comes from a 1% fee on each draw, a 1% settlement fee when an NFT is kept, and the 15% discount from Standing Bid settlements (currently allocated to the protocol). The design cleverly blends Uniswap-style liquidity provision, gacha mechanics, and tokenomics to create a novel, self-regulating marketplace for NFT liquidity and engagement.

marsbit07/30 11:56

Deep Dive into FWA: An Intriguing Experiment Turning NFTs into "On-Chain Gachapon"

marsbit07/30 11:56

活动图片